May, 14 2021, 12:00am EDT
28 Groups Denounce Facebook's Plan to Extended Data Collection by Pestering WhatsApp Users, Degrading Features
WASHINGTON
A coalition of 28 groups across the globe today sent a letter to Facebook demanding the company stop intimidating WhatsApp users to accept extended data collection, originally set to take effect on May 15.
Instead of forcing users to immediately accept new terms, Facebook is now pestering WhatsApp users to accept its policy change by May 15 or, under a new opaque timeframe, within a few weeks. WhatsApp will continually remind users to accept the new privacy policy and gradually degrade or remove core features of the app for those who do not--such as removing access to their personal chat list and deactivating message notifications. The company has not said when it plans to start restricting features.
"Despite persistent, international calls to respect people's privacy, the revised plan still prioritizes Facebook's exploitative business practices over basic privacy rights," the groups said. Facebook must immediately stop asking WhatsApp users to accept a degraded privacy policy and should reverse course on this latest move against global communications, the groups maintain.
"Facebook's prospective business model relies on extended data integration between WhatsApp and Facebook to benefit its own bottom line at the expense of user privacy. Facebook appears dedicated to continuing exploiting WhatsApp data to advance its marketing and commercial interests. Facebook has shown time and again that it simply cannot be trusted to safeguard our privacy or data," the letter reads.
"We must try to make sure Facebook is in possession of less of our data, not more. We simply cannot let the globe's messaging service function as Mark Zuckerberg's latest data goldmine. Given that Facebook's business model predicated on privacy invasion and consumer exploitation, Facebook never should have been allowed to acquire WhatsApp. The time to break up Facebook has come. The time to act is now. Save WhatsApp!"
- Burcu Kilic, digital rights program director, Public Citizen (U.S)
"Terms of usage constantly change to use business models that capitalize on member data with little regard to user privacy. We must ensure that communities, many of whom are Latino, are not held hostage by Facebook. The threat of being dropped from WhatsApp for not accepting privacy changes that only serve Facebook is reprehensible and shameful!"
- Jose M. Vargas, executive director, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (U.S.)
"Facebook continues to aggressively undermine the privacy rights of people using its platforms, including WhatsApp. To squeeze further monetization from WhatsApp, it's working to rewire this essential global messaging service to further incorporate Facebook's myriad of extensive commercial data-gathering practices. Facebook's priorities of placing its constant search for greater revenues over the interest of the public is one reason why the company must be tightly regulated, and WhatsApp must be restored as an independent entity."
- Jeff Chester, executive director, Center for Digital Democracy (U.S.)
"Facebook has repeatedly broken the privacy promises it made when it acquired WhatsApp. It's time that privacy regulators worldwide and stop Facebook from misusing WhatsApp user data."
- Caitriona Fitzgerald, deputy director, Electronic Privacy Information Center (U.S.)
"Facebook's continuing insistence on exploiting all the people who aren't protected by privacy laws like GDPR shows how tone deaf this big tech monopoly still is in this crucial moment of reckoning. From all sides, people are demanding that their privacy rights be valued more than big tech profits. That Facebook would betray its own promises from when it acquired WhatsApp and continue to push forward in its cruel plan to manipulate and exploit people who are reliant on WhatsApp says a lot not only about the company's promises, but the company's prevailing motivations. Let the way that the WhatsApp community is being treated serve as a warning sign that Facebook has not learned and is not changing. In fact, with this move they're doubling down on abusive surveillance capitalist practices while gaslighting their customers."
- Lia Holland, campaigns & communications director, Fight for the Future (U.S.)
"WhatsApp is the most used instant messaging app in Latin America, at least partially thanks to zero-rating plans that allow people to communicate through the app without affecting their plan's data cap. The changes to WhatsApp privacy policy pushed by Facebook strengthen its dominant position in the market, making even more difficult to look for alternatives more respectful of people's rights."
- Maria Paz Canales, executive director, Derechos Digitales (Latin America)
"It is the newer people joining WhatsApp that brings all the value that the network holds. Zuckerberg cannot be allowed to break his promise and still retain WhatsApp. Regulators across the world must see to it. There has been some good news from Germany in this regard, and we are sure more will follow, with citizen groups keeping up the pressure. The recent announcement that the coercive action on WhatsApp users will be administered slowly over a few weeks and not suddenly is a cruel joke, akin to telling a condemned prisoner that he will not beheaded but killed by slow strangulation."
- Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director, IT for Change (India)
"WhatsApp and Facebook, in a clear abuse of dominant position, share users' personal data without legal basis, without clear purposes, and without any possibility of opposition by its users. It's essential that the companies start respecting consumers liberty of choice and right to self-determination by giving them granular options to determine what and how data it will be collected, with what purpose and by whom."
- Juliana Oms, attorney, Brazilian Institute for Consumer Protection (IDEC) (Brazil)
"Facebook is adopting a double-standard: good behavior in countries with data-protection laws, and trying to get away with abusive data practices everywhere else, such as this 'open-timeframe' for accepting the new policy. The fact that executives are bragging that most users have already accepted an abusive policy is alarming. It is time to be the company you claim to be and stop abusing your economic power."
- Flora Rebello Arduini, senior campaigner, SumOfUs (Brazil)
"For too many people, leaving WhatsApp - especially when so many rely on it to keep in touch with their loved ones - is not a viable option. Facebook knows this, yet the company still wants to force users to accept a policy that would undermine their privacy. This is a blatant abuse of their dominance. Already South Africa's information regulator has sounded the alarm about the new policy contravening the country's Protection of Personal Information Act (PoPIA) and how the new policy is discriminatory as people in some parts of the world would enjoy significantly more privacy protections than users elsewhere. Mark Zuckerberg ignoring this call would be a blatant undermining of people's privacy in the interest of profit."
- Palesa Ramolefo, campaigner, mobi (South Africa)
"We are worried about the instability to which users in Paraguay and the global south in general are subjected to when it comes to privacy policies and terms of services that are constantly changing. It is not fair, particularly when so many individuals don't have a choice but to use WhatsApp due to poor connectivity and infrastructure."
- Eduardo Carrillo, human rights and public policies analyst, TEDIC (Paraguay)
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
To Push for Bold Treaty, Greenpeace Unveils Biden's Plastic Legacy Monument
"He can be the president who put an end to the plastic pollution crisis, or he can be the one who let it spiral out of control."
Mar 28, 2024
Inspired by Atlas, who in Greek mythology carried the heavens on his shoulders, Greenpeace installed a 15-foot monument outside the U.S. Capitol on Thursday to pressure the Biden administration to support an ambitious global plastics treaty.
President Joe Biden "has the chance to cement a lasting legacy: He can be the president who put an end to the plastic pollution crisis, or he can be the one who let it spiral out of control," Greenpeace oceans director John Hocevar said in a statement. "We're calling on him to stand up to plastic polluters like Exxon and Dow and put us on a greener and healthier path."
The third round of treaty talks ended in Kenya late last year with little progress—largely thanks to fossil fuel and chemical lobbyists along with allied governments. The next round of negotiations is set to be held in Canada next month.
The "Biden's Plastic Legacy" monument features the president kneeling and holding up an Earth full of plastic. The base has a written message: "Biden, the world's in your hands. Is this your plastic legacy?"
"Plastic pollution is everywhere, impacting every aspect of our lives. It affects our health, harms our communities, and fuels the climate crisis."
The statue's unveiling ceremony included remarks from Dr. Leo Trasande, a world-renowned environmental health researcher at New York University, and Jo Banner, who lives in Louisiana's Cancer Alley and co-directs the Descendants Project, an environmental justice group.
"The communities of color that live among the plastic manufacturers are first in line for the toxic mix of pollution they produce," said Banner. "Our health, bodies, and communities matter. We refuse to be treated as a mere checkmark on a list of concerns, and we cannot continue to be sacrificial zones."
"We need President Biden to truly listen to our needs and help create a strong global plastics treaty that protects communities like ours," she added. "We must ensure that Cancer Alley is confined to the past, not a part of the future we gift our children."
Trasande noted that in addition to the public health argument for cleaning up the plastic industry, there's an economic one.
"The chemicals found in plastics cost our economy hundreds of billions of dollars because of increases in disease and disability," the doctor said. "The easiest way to stop these diseases is to address plastic production, and a strong global treaty is essential, for people here in the U.S. and around the world."
Research has repeatedly shown the pervasiveness of plastic pollution. A January study found that there are 240,000 plastic particles in the average liter of bottled water. Last September, researchers discovered microplastics in clouds, potentially "contaminating nearly everything we eat and drink via 'plastic rainfall.'"
A 2022 Greenpeace report revealed that U.S. households "generated an estimated 51 million tons of plastic waste" the previous year, and the vast majority ended up in landfills or as pollution.
"Plastic pollution is everywhere, impacting every aspect of our lives. It affects our health, harms our communities, and fuels the climate crisis," Greenpeace campaigner Kate Melges said Thursday.
"The global plastics treaty is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a cleaner, safer planet," Melges argued. "President Biden must rise to this moment by supporting a strong plastics treaty that prioritizes human health, cuts production, and ensures a just transition for workers and communities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Justice Is Delayed' as Judges OK Rigged South Carolina Map for Elections
"I'm disappointed it appears 30,000 people lost their political voice and nobody seems to care," said one Democratic congressional candidate from the affected district.
Mar 28, 2024
Voting rights defenders on Thursday decried a federal panel's
decision to let South Carolina use a congressional map the three judges found to be racially gerrymandered in this year's primary and general elections due to the U.S. Supreme Court's delayed resolution of the case.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for South Carolina in Columbia ruled last August that "race was the predominant motivating factor" in the Republican-controlled state Legislature's design of the 1st Congressional District "and that traditional districting principles subordinated to race."
Their ruling, which ordered the redrawing of the map, noted that "Charleston County was racially gerrymandered and over 30,000 African Americans were removed from their home district."
"Make no mistake—these discriminatory maps are a direct attempt to suppress Black voices ahead of a consequential election."
In their new decision, the judges acknowledged the awkward predicament of ordering the use of an unconstitutional map.
"But with the primary election procedures rapidly approaching, the appeal before the Supreme Court still pending, and no remedial plan in place, the ideal must bend to the practical," they asserted.
Brenda Murphy, president of the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, said: "Make no mistake—these discriminatory maps are a direct attempt to suppress Black voices ahead of a consequential election. We will not stand idly by as the rights of thousands of South Carolinians continue to be overlooked."
"The court's ruling today, further delaying these proceedings, continues to tip the scale of justice during a crucial moment in our democracy in an undemocratic attempt to sway the outcome of the upcoming election," Murphy added. "We must strive for a system where every voice is heard and every vote counts, free from the stain of discrimination."
Last October, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case, which was filed in 2021 by the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and voter Taiwan Scott. They are represented by the ACLU, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the ACLU of South Carolina, Boroughs Bryant LLC, Arnold & Porter, and the General Counsel's Office of the NAACP.
As Democracy Docket noted Thursday: "The parties asked the Supreme Court for a decision by January 1, 2024. Nearly three months later, the court still hasn't ruled on the case, creating a dire situation for congressional candidates as the candidate filing period started on March 16 and will end on Monday."
Joshua Douglas, a professor at the University of Kentucky Rosenberg College of Law, said on social media that "someone should write an article about the number of times jurisdictions have been allowed to use an illegal map because there's 'not enough time' to create a fair, legal one."
Douglas noted states where this has occurred, including Alabama, Louisiana, Ohio, North Carolina, "and now South Carolina."
South Carolina primary voters will head to the polls on June 11.
The 1st Congressional District is represented by Congresswoman Nancy Mace, a Republican. On Thursday, she toldThe Post and Courier that the judges' ruling "makes sense."
"It's only fair candidates know what the lines are," Mace said. "For us, I just want to know what constituents I'm serving."
Michael B. Moore, a Democrat running for the seat, called the decision "regrettable."
"I'm disappointed it appears 30,000 people lost their political voice," he said, "and nobody seems to care."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Weak Biden Endangered Species Rules a 'Massive Missed Opportunity'
"Imperiled plants and animals do not have the time for half-measures, since extinction is forever," one expert warned.
Mar 28, 2024
While welcoming efforts by President Joe Biden's administration to undo Trump-era damage to endangered species protections, conservationists warned Thursday that three new federal rules are inadequate, given the world's worsening biodiversity crisis.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, which proposed the rules last June, said that they will "restore important protections for species and their habitats; strengthen the processes for listing species, designating of critical habitat, and consultation with other federal agencies; and ensure a science-based approach that will improve both agencies' ability to fulfill their responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)."
The Center for Biological Diversity—which had blasted the Trump administration for taking a "wrecking ball" to the decades-old law—praised the agencies for removing barriers to designating unoccupied areas as critical habitat as well as for restoring the "blanket rule" for threatened species and the ban on considering economic impacts of listing decisions.
However, the center also pointed out that "of the 31 harmful changes made in 2019 to the act's regulations, only seven are fully addressed and corrected in today's final rules," despite years of work on the new rules and nearly half a million public comments.
"We're mostly still stuck with the disastrous anti-wildlife changes made by the previous administration."
"This was a massive missed opportunity to address the worsening extinction crisis," said Stephanie Kurose, a senior policy specialist at the center. "We needed bold solutions to guide conservation as the climate crisis drives more and more animals and plants to extinction. Instead we're mostly still stuck with the disastrous anti-wildlife changes made by the previous administration."
Jamie Rappaport Clark, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife, similarly said that "while the regulations restore some essential wildlife protections, we were hopeful for far more than the marginal win the Biden administration delivered today."
"Our nation's threatened and endangered species are under constant attack and the Endangered Species Act is the only thing standing between them and extinction," she stressed. "We appreciate the administration's work on this matter, but at the end of the day much work remains to be done to ensure the Endangered Species Act can fulfill its critical lifesaving mission."
Experts at the environmental law organization Earthjustice also expressed disappointment that—as Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans put it—the Biden administration didn't fully seize "the opportunity to fully reverse the damage inflicted upon the Endangered Species Act and the imperiled species it protects."
Writing about former Republican President Donald Trump's gutting of the ESA—which Biden helped pass shortly after joining the U.S. Senate in 1973—Earthjustice president Abigail Dillen explained at The Progressive on Wednesday:
The dismantling of the ESA could not have come at a worse time. Scientists around the world are telling us that we are on track to lose a million or more species in this century. We have already witnessed a staggering drop of more than two-thirds of all plant and animal life on Earth since 1970. In the United States, nearly half of our ecosystems are now at risk of collapse. It is a staggering pace of loss that climate change is only accelerating.
It would have been far worse without the ESA. The law has saved 99% of listed species from extinction, including the bald eagle, Florida manatee, and the gray wolf, one of my first "clients" when I began my career as an environmental lawyer more than two decades ago.
Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles declared Thursday that "we are in the midst of an extinction crisis; it is time for bold action."
"Imperiled plants and animals do not have the time for half-measures," she noted, "since extinction is forever."
The new rules—expected to provoke lawsuits from farmers, ranchers, and right-wing groups—come as Biden and Trump prepare for a rematch in November.
"One of the lingering legacies of Donald Trump is his attempt to undermine the Endangered Species Act, one of the most successful and popular conservation laws in the history of the United States," Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous said Thursday. "At this moment, we should be listening to scientists and acting urgently to save biodiversity, not letting Donald Trump's gutting of environmental safeguards and sellouts to Big Business stand."
"President Biden has made generational investments in climate action with the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, but we need him to do more to protect imperiled wildlife," he added. "The Biden administration needs to protect more habitat, not less. We need the administration to increase protections for biodiversity, not abandon them. The president has the power, and we need him to use it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular